Road owners

[Al_mossah]

Jeremy Clarkson said it on Top Gear on the 1st June in answer to a question in whether a one-armed
person should be allowed to ride a bike. JC's response was long the lines of "Of course not, for the
same reason that nobody should be allowed to ride a bike... because they don't pay".

Peter "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? deftly scribbled:
>
> > I was musing and jotted this:
> >
> > <http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Get_off_my_road>
> >
> > Your comments welcome as ever.
>
> In my view no-one section of the road using public owns the road and for
any
> section to claim it owns the road outright is ludicrous.
>
> Do you have any actual references to where motorists maintain "that
cyclists
> have no right to use the road because (a) they are less numerous and (b) they do not pay"
>
> From what I can gather, this 'saying' appears to be an urban myth that cyclists seem ever keen to
> perpetuate ..
>
> Many motorists, of different types, would certainly benefit from increased education as to their
> driving attitude, the needs of other road users and the 'rights' of everyone on the road. I use on
> the road (and off-road) a car, a van, a truck occasionally, a Landrover, a motorbike, a cycle.
> Variously I have numerous models of each form of transport to choose from. My wife also drives a
> car and cycles, my sons (11 and 8 years old) both cycle. As I see it there's an inherent need of
> _everyone_ who uses the
road
> to be aware of others and do what they can to limit danger to both themselves and others. I wear a
> helmet, all the family does actually, by choice, I have lights on when I deem them necessary, and
> I wear as bright clothing as a middle-aged short fat man can get away with ..
>
> As a 'motorist', as a motorcyclist, a truck driver, a van driver, a
cyclist,
> a pedestrian etc etc, I have never actually heard anyone *ever* say that cyclists ought not to be
> allowed onto the road system, and mean it. I've heard it said in jest, Jeremy Beadle, or is it
> Clarkson, may have said it
a
> time or two for effect I presume, but I can honestly confirm I've never heard anyone actually say
> it who meant it.
>
> --
> Digweed

 

[Not Me]

Just zis Guy, you know? deftly scribbled:

> "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Do you have any actual references to where motorists maintain "that cyclists have no right to use
>> the road because (a) they are less numerous and (b) they do not pay"
>
> Anything by Tony Parsons and most of uk.tosspot spring to mind.

Well I do read uk.rec.driving .. but uk.transport really doesn't do anything for me .. Who's Tony
Parsons, another 'motoring journalist' I guess ?

> Why should you have to wear conspicuous clothing? Are we to excuse drivers who hit trees because
> the trees are not fitted with reflectors and lights?

I figure I don't *have* to wear bright clothing, but I figure that if I make the effort to be as
conspicuous, within reason, as I can be, then if an accident happens I can truthfully say I did my
part in trying to be seen. Let's face it, when on the cycle I'm the most vulnerable road user other
than pedestrians. I feel I owe it to myself to minimise the risk ..

I don't ride defensively _ever_.

I take an aggressive stance, or road position, especially when negotiating corners or roundabouts
and really try to make my presence felt when on the cycle. It seems to have worked so far ..

> Back when I passed my test I was expected to be sure that I could stop within the distance I could
> see to be clear
> - not "clear of things with lights" or "clear of things with reflective surfaces," but "clear." So
> now we blame pedestrians on country roads when they are knocked over at night. Who brought the
> danger to the situation? It's all part of the pervasive culture of victim-blaming which has
> characterised British "road safety" policy for almost a century.

I think that's where true education for all road users would really benefit everyone.

> And don't get me started on polystyrene foam deflector beanies...

OK .. As I don't know what they are ..

> I have had people try to run me off the road because I was taking up more than their notion of a
> cyclist's fair share (i.e. a 1" strip in the gutter). It's more widespread than you think.

I've never really had this problem, dunno why. I've cycled in Nottingham, around Norwich, London
centre, Doncaster, Paris, St Tropex, the Pyrenees, Austria, 'the country' and almost anywhere in
between. I cycle maybe 3,000 miles a year, give or take a bit.

--
Digweed

 

[Not Me]

Andy Dingley deftly scribbled:

> On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:57:41 +0100, "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Do you have any actual references to where motorists maintain "that cyclists have no right to use
>> the road because (a) they are less numerous and (b) they do not pay"
>
> Green Audi, Coronation Rd. Bristol (just after hitting me with their door mirror) "You should be
> on the cycle path, not the road"
>
> The cycle path is on the other side of the road, and is a one-way going opposite. It's also the
> infamous Bristol path where it's marked to go right through the centre of some long-established,
> wide and unmarked trees.

We have one like that on Canal Street in Nottingham ..

--
Digweed

 

[Not Me]

Dave Kahn deftly scribbled:

> Bob Flemming <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> If, as cyclists, we knew that any revenue we gave to the treasury for the priviledge of using the
>> road would go to the development of cycling in the UK, then I'm pretty sure most people would
>> happily pay something...
>
> For cyclists, unlike motorists, using the road is not a privilege but a right.

Wrong. I thought anyone, with any form of transport (physical and legal limitations aside, like a
train maybe), can use the roads ..

Why is it a 'right' for cyclists and not a 'right' for motorists ?

--
Digweed

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected], Tim Woodall <[email protected]> typed:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:41:26 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On the seatbelt issue, the total number of deaths did actually go down, which is not what your
>> article says, the way I read it. And it's not universally accepted that it was drink drive
>> campaigns (which, AIUI, were more of a factor than laws) that caused the overall reduction.
>>
> http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/SeatbeltLaws.html
>
Thanks, that's a good document. Maybe a citation of that or the Isles report would make the point.

It would probably be better, depending on who Guy's audience is, for there to be a simple statement
of the increased risks that seatbelt wearing brought to people who weren't in the front seat of a
car, and noting the data from the above link which says:

In 1983, 23% of the fall in road deaths occurred between 10pm and 4am, 3% of the fall occurred at
other hours of the day.

With a citation of Risk by J Adams (UCL Press, London, 1995), which is where that statistic
comes from.

Ambrose

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >> Do you have any actual references to where motorists maintain "that cyclists have no right to
> >> use the road because (a) they are less numerous and (b) they do not pay"

> > Anything by Tony Parsons and most of uk.tosspot spring to mind.

> Well I do read uk.rec.driving .. but uk.transport really doesn't do
anything
> for me .. Who's Tony Parsons, another 'motoring journalist' I guess ?

Tony Parsons is more of a motormouth journo than a motoring journo. And I agree about uk.tosspot
- it's not even fun trolling over there, it's a case of casting artificial pearls before very
real swine.

> I figure I don't *have* to wear bright clothing, but I figure that if I
make
> the effort to be as conspicuous, within reason, as I can be, then if an accident happens I can
> truthfully say I did my part in trying to be seen. Let's face it, when on the cycle I'm the most
> vulnerable road user other than pedestrians. I feel I owe it to myself to minimise the risk ..

Sure - and I do the same, but we need to bear in mind that what we're doing is deferring to the
careless and dangerous, which is potentially a slippery slope.

> I don't ride defensively _ever_.

I ride defensively _always_ because the alternative is to court death. I also drive defensively.
Assume that everybody out there is trying to kill you and you will probably live longer as a
result

> I take an aggressive stance, or road position, especially when negotiating corners or roundabouts
> and really try to make my presence felt when on the cycle. It seems to have worked so far ..

Defensive riding is fully compatible with assertiveness. Cringeing in the gutter is not defensive
riding. I recommend John Franklin's Cyclecraft.

> > And don't get me started on polystyrene foam deflector beanies...

> OK .. As I don't know what they are ..

They are foam hats which allegedly render cyclists immune from all danger, and whose use should be
compulsory according to all Right Thinking People (despite the evidence that increasing rates of use
of PFDBs is generally associated with lower levels of cycling and higher injury and fatality rates).

> > I have had people try to run me off the road because I was taking up more than their notion of a
> > cyclist's fair share (i.e. a 1" strip in the gutter). It's more widespread than you think.

> I've never really had this problem, dunno why.

'cos you're lucky.

> I cycle maybe 3,000 miles a year, give or take a bit.

I do more than that, usually just short of 5000 miles, and I commute by bike. Motorist behaviour is
definitely at its worst in the Morning Hate, with the Evening Hate a close second.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[Not Me]

wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX deftly scribbled:

>> Heheheh, I've heard Clarkson say it .. but I thought it was to be taken like almost any other
>> comment he makes .. or like I said, he only says it for effect ..
>
> Sadly, there's too many of the male of the species, with an amoeba for a brain and tiny penises,
> who hang on to every word w*nker Clarkson utters and think it's to be taken seriously. They then
> go out and drive their penis extensions in the way Clarkson describes.

LOL, well my penis is small, but I'm told my brain isn't .. My Land Rover's large, but certainly
hasn't anything whatever to do with my physical size .. or my wifes size as she also drives it ..

> Cheers, helen s
>
> (you may gather I do not hold Clarkson in either high regard or to be amusing)

I don't know many people who *do* hold him in high regard.

--
Digweed

 

[Dave Larrington]

Digweed wrote:

> Heheheh, I've heard Clarkson say it .. but I thought it was to be taken like almost any other
> comment he makes .. or like I said, he only says it for effect ..
>
> Maybe I'm wrong ..

What Digweed said. Taking Clarkson seriously is Not Recommended. Mind you, the BHPC are having a
touring weekend in his manor soon, so perhaps there will be cause for a collective change of mind.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > For cyclists, unlike motorists, using the road is not a privilege but a right.

> Wrong.

No, absolutely right.

> I thought anyone, with any form of transport (physical and legal limitations aside, like a train
> maybe), can use the roads .. Why is it a 'right' for cyclists and not a 'right' for motorists ?

Motor vehicle drivers are allowed on the road solely under licence, which licence is subject to age
and fitness contraints and may be revoked subject to certain conditions. Cyclists, pedestrians and
the like use the roads by right of way.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> In 1983, 23% of the fall in road deaths occurred between 10pm and 4am, 3% of the fall occurred at
> other hours of the day.

Thanks, Ambrose, neatly put. Duly updated.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[Dave Larrington]

Digweed asked:

> Well I do read uk.rec.driving .. but uk.transport really doesn't do anything for me .. Who's Tony
> Parsons, another 'motoring journalist' I guess ?

Started out as an Angry Young Man writing for the NME during the Punk Wars. Married Julie Burchill.
'nuff said.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Not Me]

Just zis Guy, you know? deftly scribbled:

> "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> Well I do read uk.rec.driving .. but uk.transport really doesn't do anything for me .. Who's Tony
>> Parsons, another 'motoring journalist' I guess ?
>
> Tony Parsons is more of a motormouth journo than a motoring journo.

Heheheh, it figures ..

> And I agree about uk.tosspot - it's not even fun trolling over there, it's a case of casting
> artificial pearls before very real swine.

To call them bigots is being polite to them ..

>> I figure I don't *have* to wear bright clothing, but I figure that if I make the effort to be as
>> conspicuous, within reason, as I can be, then if an accident happens I can truthfully say I did
>> my part in trying to be seen. Let's face it, when on the cycle I'm the most vulnerable road user
>> other than pedestrians. I feel I owe it to myself to minimise the risk ..
>
> Sure - and I do the same, but we need to bear in mind that what we're doing is deferring to the
> careless and dangerous, which is potentially a slippery slope.

I hadn't looked at it quite like that, but yes, you have a valid point.

>> I don't ride defensively _ever_.
>
> I ride defensively _always_ because the alternative is to court death. I also drive defensively.
> Assume that everybody out there is trying to kill you and you will probably live longer as a
> result
>
>> I take an aggressive stance, or road position, especially when negotiating corners or roundabouts
>> and really try to make my presence felt when on the cycle. It seems to have worked so far ..
>
> Defensive riding is fully compatible with assertiveness. Cringeing in the gutter is not defensive
> riding. I recommend John Franklin's Cyclecraft.

I've never really read any books on roadcraft. I learnt to drive and ride at an early age, raced
motorbikes from about 7 year old .. drove a car at about 6 year old. All on farmland and tracks
owned by 'the family' ..

I guess what I call my my 'aggressive' stance could be called defensive riding. I'll have a look and
let you know ..

>>> And don't get me started on polystyrene foam deflector beanies...
>
>> OK .. As I don't know what they are ..
>
> They are foam hats which allegedly render cyclists immune from all danger, and whose use should
> be compulsory according to all Right Thinking People (despite the evidence that increasing rates
> of use of PFDBs is generally associated with lower levels of cycling and higher injury and
> fatality rates).

Heheheh .. I now get the drift. I've always worn a helmet, but then that's maybe my motocross / road
racing and car racing heritage kicking in .. Can't say I feel any 'safer' or less vulnerable, I just
feel I'm trying to mitigate any potential danger or injury .. Only times I've needed my helmet
have been off-road. Twice I've split helmets lengthways, once when my head argued with a tree and
once when my head argued with a scree slope boulder or two ..

>>> I have had people try to run me off the road because I was taking up more than their notion of a
>>> cyclist's fair share (i.e. a 1" strip in the gutter). It's more widespread than you think.
>
>> I've never really had this problem, dunno why.
>
> 'cos you're lucky.
>
>> I cycle maybe 3,000 miles a year, give or take a bit.
>
> I do more than that, usually just short of 5000 miles, and I commute by bike. Motorist behaviour
> is definitely at its worst in the Morning Hate, with the Evening Hate a close second.

Maybe that's it. I've never 'truly' commuted by cycle, until very recently. I've basically retired
and become a school caretaker, only relief work at the moment. I arrive at work at 6am, home at 11am
then go to work again for 3pm and home again at 5.30pm which misses most of the bad traffic .. The
commute is 5 miles each way too, so 20 miles a day, but I've only been doing this for about 8 weeks,
and going to work is heading out of town ..

Most of my cycling is actually leisure cycling with the kids, wife, friends or on my own .. I guess
now I also commute my cycling mileage will go up to around 8 to 10000 miles a year, especially as
the kids keep wanting to go on longer rides every week it seems ..

I don't do 'racing' any more.

--
Digweed

 

[Not Me]

Just zis Guy, you know? deftly scribbled:

> "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> For cyclists, unlike motorists, using the road is not a privilege but a right.
>
>> Wrong.
>
> No, absolutely right.
>
>> I thought anyone, with any form of transport (physical and legal limitations aside, like a train
>> maybe), can use the roads .. Why is it a 'right' for cyclists and not a 'right' for motorists ?
>
> Motor vehicle drivers are allowed on the road solely under licence, which licence is subject to
> age and fitness contraints and may be revoked subject to certain conditions. Cyclists, pedestrians
> and the like use the roads by right of way.

As I said, physical and legal limitations aside ..

Again, something I've never really looked into before. I was under the impression that the licence
was a licence to drive a vehicle or specific type of vehicle, not necessarily to use the road ..
though is this just semantics ?

Heheheh, never mind, I get the point ..

--
Digweed

 

[Tony W]

"wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Sadly, there's too many of the male of the species, with an amoeba for a
brain
> and tiny penises, who hang on to every word w*nker Clarkson utters and
think
> it's to be taken seriously. They then go out and drive their penis
extensions
> in the way Clarkson describes.

There is, of course, the bumper sticker that states that 'women like the simple things in life.


Men'

While I can see a brief conversation might give an indication of brain capacity -- how can you be so
sure of their ***** dimensions -- oh PSF?? Is this another of your powers? Or have you checked them
all individually? With a magnifying glass?

If so, how did you withstand the boredom of the intellectual exchange?

T

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:18:07 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> In 1983, 23% of the fall in road deaths occurred between 10pm and 4am, 3% of the fall occurred
>> at other hours of the day.
>
> Thanks, Ambrose, neatly put. Duly updated.
>
This is Ambrose quoting from the URL I gave (I understood that he wasn't intending to pass this
statement off as his own but you may have made it appear that he was)

However, I don't fully understand this quote. Surely 100% of the fall in road deaths happened either
between 10pm and 4am or at other hours of the day.

I assume that this really means 88% of the fall in road deaths occurred between 10pm and 4am, 12%
at other hours of the day with a 25%[1] reduction in deaths amongst drivers and front seat
passengers occuring.

Given that the "other times" makes up three quarters of the day the statistic is even more dramatic
than 88%/12% would make it appear

I remember reading something along the lines of (from memory because I can't find the
original report)

"Since the UK brought in compulsory seatbelt laws, 67 other jurisrictions have done the same. The UK
is the only one for which the statistics might imply a net saving of lives (if you assume that all
the savings were due to seatbelts and non to evidential breath testing)"

Regards,

Tim.

[1] The numbers don't quite tally. I assume that this is due to rounding errors.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Jeremy Parker]

> In my view no-one section of the road using public owns the road and for any section to claim it
> owns the road outright is ludicrous.

I suspect that you might find some roads, at least, are technically owned by the Lord of the Manor.
I beleive they extract rent from BT for the telephone poles on the grass verge.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[Tony Parsons]

> Started out as an Angry Young Man

And is now an angry middle-aged git ;-)

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Tim Woodall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> This is Ambrose quoting from the URL I gave

In which case and in the Interests of Fairness, thanks Tim as well

> "Since the UK brought in compulsory seatbelt laws, 67 other jurisrictions have done the same. The
> UK is the only one for which the statistics might imply a net saving of lives (if you assume that
> all the savings were due
to
> seatbelts and non to evidential breath testing)"

Sounds like Robert Davis, or possibly Adams.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[Helen Deborah V]

Thus spake "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]>

> Why is it a 'right' for cyclists and not a 'right' for motorists ?

A motorist needs a licence (which can be revoked) and must pass a test. It is therefore a privilege
for the motorist.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.

 

[Peter Amey]

Not me, someone else wrote: [snip]
>
> I don't ride defensively _ever_.
>
> I take an aggressive stance, or road position, especially when negotiating corners or roundabouts
> and really try to make my presence felt when on the cycle. It seems to have worked so far ..

A succinct description of "riding defensively"!

>
> [snip]

Peter